Minimum evidence for MP arrest?

[GPIDEAL]

So using your line of reasoning, if an MP sold each customer a pack of gum for $150 prior to the session and received sexual services after then it would confirm to the law. This is because "it shouldn't automatically mean that he paid for 'everything being provided'.". You are right in that the crown can't just assume that everyone who enters a MP is guilty of purchasing a sexual service, but let's say during a bylaw checkup they catch you getting jerked off by an MPA - What reasonable conclusion would they be able to draw? Your defense is entirely based on plausible deniability. From the officers standpoint, if they wanted to enforce the law, may not sound that plausible at all.

Yours is a poor analogy (they can't even sell gum to the public without a retail license, etc., etc.). Just work with the scenario I responded to.

I visit a MP. Pay for the room and the body rub first (as is the practice with certain BRPs). They are not selling sex. I have no more money in my pocket. I score a HJ or BJ (maybe for being a repeat customer or it's a loss leader, but nobody knows for sure, nor is anything admitted except perhaps, "I like him"). There's no evidence that she got paid for an extra, or that I will pay her for an extra. C'est tout.

So what is the evidence, based SOLELY on a momentary visual that is beyond a reasonable doubt, that I paid for that sex or communicated for it, if all they did was open the door and see us in a brief intimate moment? Is there anything to corroborate the purchase of a sexual service?

 

[bobcat40]

Yours is a poor analogy (they can't even sell gum to the public without a retail license, etc., etc.). Just work with the scenario I responded to.

I visit a MP. Pay for the room and the body rub first (as is the practice with certain BRPs). They are not selling sex. I have no more money in my pocket. I score a HJ or BJ (maybe for being a repeat customer or it's a loss leader, but nobody knows for sure, nor is anything admitted except perhaps, "I like him"). There's no evidence that she got paid for an extra, or that I will pay her for an extra. C'est tout.

So what is the evidence, based SOLELY on a momentary visual that is beyond a reasonable doubt, that I paid for that sex or communicated for it, if all they did was open the door and see us in a brief intimate moment? Is there anything to corroborate the purchase of a sexual service?

Well my analogy isn't exactly poor. Conceptually, you are insinuating that if I purchase X but also receive Y "free of charge", then am I paying for Y? This is exactly what I am suggesting in my scenario. You can't exactly just use the facts you are providing in a vacuum. They key thing the crown would need to prove is that the sexual act is indiscriminate. The bar for which isn't exactly high. Say the cops come in and see several customers are engaged in sexual acts, they go undercover and are offered sexual acts, an undercover officer applies to a job position and are told what services they are expected to perform, etc. - I'm quite sure this type of evidence would be sufficient to circumstantially prove that the sexual acts received in the establishment are indiscriminate and therefore rendered for some type of compensation.

Your logic sets up a situation which renders the law pretty much unenforceable. Escort Agencies are selling companionship, massage parlours selling massages. Ultimately, it is obvious that such activities violate the spirit of the law and judges will see it as such no matter how you want to spin it. Yes there is a very low level ONCJ judgement that may support your thinking but there is much more case law on the other side that doesn't take such a narrow view of what constitutes prostitution.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well my analogy isn't exactly poor. Conceptually, you are insinuating that if I purchase X but also receive Y "free of charge", then am I paying for Y? This is exactly what I am suggesting in my scenario. You can't exactly just use the facts you are providing in a vacuum. They key thing the crown would need to prove is that the sexual act is indiscriminate. The bar for which isn't exactly high. Say the cops come in and see several customers are engaged in sexual acts, they go undercover and are offered sexual acts, an undercover officer applies to a job position and are told what services they are expected to perform, etc. - I'm quite sure this type of evidence would be sufficient to circumstantially prove that the sexual acts received in the establishment are indiscriminate and therefore rendered for some type of compensation.

Your logic sets up a situation which renders the law pretty much unenforceable. Escort Agencies are selling companionship, massage parlours selling massages. Ultimately, it is obvious that such activities violate the spirit of the law and judges will see it as such no matter how you want to spin it. Yes there is a very low level ONCJ judgement that may support your thinking but there is much more case law on the other side that doesn't take such a narrow view of what constitutes prostitution.

Bobcat, I appreciate most of your learned comments, but your 'analogy' was too extreme and farcical.

If you speak now of an undercover operation that reveals more underlying information, that's an entirely different scenario. That kind of circumstantial evidence that you refer to changes the fact situation by a lot.

I was just speaking to a simple case of a by-law officer or cop opening a room door in a random check, without any other evidence introduced into the situation.

 

[wanttodo]

Bobcat, I appreciate most of your learned comments, but your 'analogy' was too extreme and farcical.

If you speak now of an undercover operation that reveals more underlying information, that's an entirely different scenario. That kind of circumstantial evidence that you refer to changes the fact situation by a lot.

I was just speaking to a simple case of a by-law officer or cop opening a room door in a random check, without any other evidence introduced into the situation.

In the scenarios presented, LE eye-witnesses a sexual service being performed in the MP, this is direct evidence. Worst case for the client happens when the consideration element of the offense is inferred though Circumstantial evidence, as explained by BC40. However, the necessary element for LE seems to be the direct evidence of a sexual service occuring. Without this, how strong a case can LE form against someone who walks into MP, and comes out after their session, without getting caught red handed.

With all the security cameras and doorbells going off, it should not be too hard to postpone the fun until the coast is clear, no? Major fear should be when there is another client in the MP with you, who could be undercover LE searching for direct evidence. Thoughts?

 

[bobcat40]

Bobcat, I appreciate most of your learned comments, but your 'analogy' was too extreme and farcical.

If you speak now of an undercover operation that reveals more underlying information, that's an entirely different scenario. That kind of circumstantial evidence that you refer to changes the fact situation by a lot.

I was just speaking to a simple case of a by-law officer or cop opening a room door in a random check, without any other evidence introduced into the situation.

Well the cops probably at the very least know and you and I know, which is that guys frequent mps to receive sexual services which are paid for (either directly or indirectly). I'm not sure they're gonna have to dive too deep undercover to have sufficient evidence to prove what they already know. All I'm trying to say is what a lawyer told me about C-36. If the cops want to enforce it, they can arrest you quite easily. We all are just hoping they won't enforce it. There's too much stuff on this board which mixes up just how legal these activities are vs. whether or not someone will enforce it. Most situations involving MPs and Escort agencies are grey at best if the cops actually chose to enforce C-36 to the letter.

 

[d_jedi]

Bobcat, I appreciate most of your learned comments, but your 'analogy' was too extreme and farcical.

If you speak now of an undercover operation that reveals more underlying information, that's an entirely different scenario. That kind of circumstantial evidence that you refer to changes the fact situation by a lot.

I was just speaking to a simple case of a by-law officer or cop opening a room door in a random check, without any other evidence introduced into the situation.

Not necessarily enough evidence to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt" in your simple scenario, but quite possibly enough to arrest (where the bar is lower). Whether police would bother is debatable, of course. The problem is that any recorded police interaction - such as an arrest - can have a devastating effect on someone's life.

 

[MPAsquared]

LE peeking through the peep hole while your sausage is being stroked until ejaculation and the attendant nude, what is your defense?

Hobby where there are no peephole bylaws.

I don't think anyone knows for certain. LE has a lot of discretion in the matter as well.
The law says it's illegal to receive a sexual service for consideration (ie. paying for it).
What is a "sexual service"? Undefined by the law, but we can probably assume that most of the acts we have acronyms for would be covered by it.
So say LE busts in during your session and finds you balls deep inside a MPA. That's fairly definitive proof of a sexual service, or at least a sexual act. There are other, more circumstantial ways they could presumably prove or infer a sexual service.
Now.. consideration. You paid for a body rub/massage. That's fairly easy to prove, or at least infer, as well.

This does not actually prove that you paid for a sexual service in violation of C-36. But it might be enough for police to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed and to arrest you.

I think LE has a lot of discretion here, and thus far they've chosen their targets carefully (ie. human traffickers). It doesn't really serve any purpose to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for engaging in consensual sexual encounters. But this doesn't mean a "bust" isn't possible. The fact that we haven't seen one yet is certainly promising.. but doesn't necessarily mean we're completely in the clear.

Assume all you want, but you haven't been hobbying so you really cannot assume anything from the outside looking in.

Evidence could very much be circumstantial. There isn't an established "minimum standard" and probably won't be until some judgments are made. Sufficient circumstantial evidence would likely be seen to be enough. Some people on this board are confusing beyond a reasonable doubt with beyond all possible doubt. They believe the crown has to prove:

1) Evidence of the consideration (essentially the communication of a contract) for a sexual service
2) Evidence that the contract was engage by both parties (seeing money change hands and sexual service rendered)

This is probably too high of a bar for "reasonable doubt". You need to ask yourself in the judges position, if the crown could provide that a particular venue (a massage parlour or escort agency incall location) could be proven to habitually be used for the provision of sexual services based on an officers testimony; combined with the officer witnessing you engaged in a sexual act in said venue; would you personally have any reasonable doubt as to what occurred? Would you rule that the person is innocent on the off chance that the man and women just so happened to hook up at a massage parlour free of charge? Some people here believe that there needs to be definitive evidence of "consideration" to lay a charge. But I am most definitely of the belief that officers do not need definitive evidence, if it can be circumstantially proven with reasonable belief.

To say otherwise, would almost be to say that to prove a murder you need a witness to physically see the murder take place. We all know this isn't true as many such convictions are based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence (i.e. motive, method, lack of alibi, etc.) as in many situations murders don't have direct witnesses or surveillance of the act taking place.

Cops can't go undercover to get services. They would then be the criminal aka "john".

Therein lies the rub (pun intended).

Your analysis assumes that a full body massage constitutes a sexual service. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Naysayers will argue that under Ponomarev, a rub and tug was found not to be a bawdy house because specific consideration was not negotiated for the hand job.

The distinction, I believe, is that Ponomarev didn't consider whether a full body rub was an act of prostitution. The arguments focused on the handjob and whether it was separately negotiated. My understanding is that C-36 potentially puts the broader service of full body massage into play.

A massage is not a sexual service. If it was, rmt's would be out of business/criminals too.

Well the cops probably at the very least know and you and I know, which is that guys frequent mps to receive sexual services which are paid for (either directly or indirectly). I'm not sure they're gonna have to dive too deep undercover to have sufficient evidence to prove what they already know. All I'm trying to say is what a lawyer told me about C-36. If the cops want to enforce it, they can arrest you quite easily. We all are just hoping they won't enforce it. There's too much stuff on this board which mixes up just how legal these activities are vs. whether or not someone will enforce it. Most situations involving MPs and Escort agencies are grey at best if the cops actually chose to enforce C-36 to the letter.

"Probably"? That's your big comeback? Lol. A lot of assuming here.

 

[TeasePlease]

If he has no money in his pockets, and the practice at the MP is to pay for the legal massage or body rub first (i.e., prior to the session), then it shouldn't automatically mean that he paid for 'everything being provided'.

Your own logic impugns your reasoning.

Cops can't go undercover to get services. They would then be the criminal aka "john".

That's interesting. I hadn't considered that. Then again, I'm not sure that the legal principle is absolute. Can cops break the speed limit to catch a speeder?

A massage is not a sexual service. If it was, rmt's would be out of business/criminals too.

Is that your legal position or a statement of fact?

Do RMT's perform full body massage? Do RMT's touch penis? Are they allowed to? Is Tylenol Extra Strength the same as Tylenol 3?

 

[GPIDEAL]

In the scenarios presented, LE eye-witnesses a sexual service being performed in the MP, this is direct evidence. Worst case for the client happens when the consideration element of the offense is inferred though Circumstantial evidence, as explained by BC40. However, the necessary element for LE seems to be the direct evidence of a sexual service occuring. Without this, how strong a case can LE form against someone who walks into MP, and comes out after their session, without getting caught red handed.

With all the security cameras and doorbells going off, it should not be too hard to postpone the fun until the coast is clear, no? Major fear should be when there is another client in the MP with you, who could be undercover LE searching for direct evidence. Thoughts?

Direct evidence of a sexual act and against any by-law, but not necessarily of a sexual service (especially without any accumulation of circumstantial evidence that Bobcat40 talked about). What if I know her and she obliged?

P.S. Yes, an arrest could result and that's problematic by itself, but will the charge stick?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well the cops probably at the very least know and you and I know, which is that guys frequent mps to receive sexual services which are paid for (either directly or indirectly). I'm not sure they're gonna have to dive too deep undercover to have sufficient evidence to prove what they already know. All I'm trying to say is what a lawyer told me about C-36. If the cops want to enforce it, they can arrest you quite easily. We all are just hoping they won't enforce it. There's too much stuff on this board which mixes up just how legal these activities are vs. whether or not someone will enforce it. Most situations involving MPs and Escort agencies are grey at best if the cops actually chose to enforce C-36 to the letter.

As Fuji said, they can arrest you for any excuse, but will the charge stick? An arrest is enough of a shock as wanttodo said in post #47 but I'm talking about a conviction a la C-36.

Selling a pack of gum and then giving a body rub is sketchy. Paying for a massage/body rub and scoring a HJ, without any other evidence to suggest that that act is standard practice or expected, is not as sketchy and might happen between two consenting adults.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Your own logic impugns your reasoning.

Why? The parlor is in business to give body rubs, not sexual services. I have no more money to tip or pay for an 'extra'. You can go ahead to assume the most culpable scenario, but I'm taking the position that LE needs evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I paid for more than what's advertised.

 

[GPIDEAL]

"Probably"? That's your big comeback? Lol. A lot of assuming here.

Some of these guys should just carry a pair of handcuffs with them to save the cops the trouble, and a pre-written confession of wrong doing.

(Not that we shouldn't discuss worst case scenarios and how to deal with them, but it sounds more like scare mongering).

 

[bobcat40]

Some of these guys should just carry a pair of handcuffs with them to save the cops the trouble, and a pre-written confession of wrong doing.

(Not that we shouldn't discuss worst case scenarios and how to deal with them, but it sounds more like scare mongering).

I have said many times, cops are unlikely to go all rambo with this new law. In fact, enforcement of the law is probably going to be quite limited unless the political landscape shifts dramatically. All I am saying is that there is a clear difference between the lack of enforcement vs. the legality of receiving a handjob at a massage parlour.

If MPA2 and you for some reason believe that cops don't know what actually goes on in body rub parlours or would have any trouble proving what they already know occurs in them, then I have a bridge to sell you.

A scenario where the police decide to enforce the law periodically isn't what I'd call a worst case scenario. I'm not saying they're gonna dedicated the whole force to raid MPs day and night but they could decide to conduct an operation at some point. It isn't exactly completely off base. Should they conduct such an operation and you are literally caught inside the MP with your pants down, if you like your chances then great. I'm sure many people here wouldn't exactly feel their chances are favorable to not at least get arrested.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I have said many times, cops are unlikely to go all rambo with this new law. In fact, enforcement of the law is probably going to be quite limited unless the political landscape shifts dramatically. All I am saying is that there is a clear difference between the lack of enforcement vs. the legality of receiving a handjob at a massage parlour.

If MPA2 and you for some reason believe that cops don't know what actually goes on in body rub parlours or would have any trouble proving what they already know occurs in them, then I have a bridge to sell you.

A scenario where the police decide to enforce the law periodically isn't what I'd call a worst case scenario. I'm not saying they're gonna dedicated the whole force to raid MPs day and night but they could decide to conduct an operation at some point. It isn't exactly completely off base. Should they conduct such an operation and you are literally caught inside the MP with your pants down, if you like your chances then great. I'm sure many people here wouldn't exactly feel their chances are favorable to not at least get arrested.

If enforcement is heightened, it will be discouraging. Yes, I agree with you on that.

However, what cops think goes on or what they 'know' through the grapevine, is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt IMHO.

Frankly, I think C-36 is simply a political solution for the Conservatives prior to the next election, and that it's true effect is to simply make hobbying more discreet or push it underground so that it appears that something was done about it.

 

[TeasePlease]

Why? The parlor is in business to give body rubs, not sexual services. I have no more money to tip or pay for an 'extra'. You can go ahead to assume the most culpable scenario, but I'm taking the position that LE needs evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I paid for more than what's advertised.

You rely on a premise that has not been established in fact or in law. If it is customary to pay for services up front, and you have no money in your pockets, it is logical to assume that you have paid for whatever you have received/are receiving.

 

[oldjones]

Since all an officer requires for an arrest is reasonable and probable grounds that anm offence has been committed, TP's reading could well answer the OP's question—In a MP scenario, what would be grounds for an arrest? GP's objection might well be read as a very reasonable doubt once the case came to trial and allow the accused to walk free, absent any other incriminating evidence of course. Something like that distinction seems to underly Judge Chisvin's decision to free the MPA without reprimand to the arresting officer.

It really would seem to require something like the blaming of rape victims to read an empty wallet, and required prepayment for listed massage services as proof that, 'he must have asked for it'. But as the suspicion required for an arrest, it may well pass.

 

[TeasePlease]

Geez, I was just being facetious...

 

[GPIDEAL]

You rely on a premise that has not been established in fact or in law. If it is customary to pay for services up front, and you have no money in your pockets, it is logical to assume that you have paid for whatever you have received/are receiving.

I think the BRP owner will disagree with your 'logic'.

A licensed establishment advertises room fee and body rub. I pay those fees at the outset. Nothing more. I happen to be caught with her hand around my member. Oops. Our statements to LE are that it was not part of any transaction.

One could say that it is customary that an extra service is paid for, but there is no payment.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Since all an officer requires for an arrest is reasonable and probable grounds that anm offence has been committed, TP's reading could well answer the OP's question—In a MP scenario, what would be grounds for an arrest? GP's objection might well be read as a very reasonable doubt once the case came to trial and allow the accused to walk free, absent any other incriminating evidence of course. Something like that distinction seems to underly Judge Chisvin's decision to free the MPA without reprimand to the arresting officer.

It really would seem to require something like the blaming of rape victims to read an empty wallet, and required prepayment for listed massage services as proof that, 'he must have asked for it'. But as the suspicion required for an arrest, it may well pass.

Oh I'll agree that it could attract an arrest, but it's not like I wouldn't protest it either.

(I've stated before that if I see a cop parked outside of a MP, I may be deterred from entering or proceeding with an appointment).

 

[TeasePlease]

I think the BRP owner will disagree with your 'logic'.

A licensed establishment advertises room fee and body rub. I pay those fees at the outset. Nothing more. I happen to be caught with her hand around my member. Oops. Our statements to LE are that it was not part of any transaction.

One could say that it is customary that an extra service is paid for, but there is no payment.

Did you pay for a body rub? Did you get a full body rub?

Those are my questions, your honour. <as I sit down>